Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

It was

the Directory. But America did not declare war. proposed by the party hostile to the administration, that an extraordinary minister suiting "the solemnity of the occasion," should be sent to represent the " temper and sensibilities of the country." Messrs. Pinckney, Gerry, and Marshall were appointed commissioners, and instructed" to terminate our differences in such manner, as .. might be the best calcu lated to produce mutual satisfaction and good understanding." Their treatment was a disgrace to the French nation. Two of them demanded their passports and returned home. Mr. Gerry remained till officially and peremptorily recalled. Still there was no war. America was put in a state of defence not in a state of offence. The opposition then made to even these measures is well known. Some were desirous of war; still pacific counsels prevailed. The reason was the American government desired to keep the peace. Yet the depredations committed on the property and persons of American citizens were enormous. "Occasion," says Mr. Marshall, "was repeatedly taken to insult the American government; open war was continued to be waged by the cruisers of France on American commerce; and the flag of the United States was a sufficient justification for the capture and condemnation of any vessel over which it waved." More than three hundred American vessels had been taken by the French, and the amount of their depredations was estimated at over $15,000,000. Still, President Adams said

"In demonstrating . . . that we do not fear war in the necessary protection of our rights and honor, we shall give no room to infer that we abandon the desire of peace. It is peace that we have uniformly and perseveringly cultivated, and harmony between us and France may be restored at her option." *

We are surprised that Mr. Polk should lay any stress on the refusal of Mexico to receive Mr. Slidell. To receive a minister is a duty of imperfect obligation, as the Publicists. would have told him. Any State may refuse to receive a particular person as minister, without violating the comity of nations, if she objects to the personal character of the man, or to the diplomatic character of the minister. This is so

* Adams's Second Annual Address, Dec. 8th, 1798. See too the "Address in Reply," by the House of Representatives.

was a

well understood that it is useless to refer to authorities.* The refusal to receive Mr. Slidell - for the reasons givenmatter of no great magnitude or importance. Mexico had never agreed to receive a minister with full powers, to reside near her government as a permanent representative of the nation, only a commissioner to treat in reference to the Texan difficulties. But take the President's statement of the case; admit that it was foolish on the part of Mexico, under such circumstances, to reject Mr. Slidell, because America had committed a breach of diplomatic etiquette; suppose it was weak and silly-it was certainly no ground for war. It is quite plain that Mr. Slidell was a very unsuitable person to send on a mission of peace to an offended nation. His correspondence proves this. He may be a very illustrious citizen of Louisiana; but few men in America, we think, out of that State, ever heard much good of him before his appointment to this mission. His conduct while there reflects no honor on America. We cannot think he was sent there with the serious intention of settling the difficulties in a just and honorable manner. Indeed, some of his instructions seem given him quite as much with a view to influence public opinion in America, as to have an effect on the Mexican government. This will appear by the following extract from Mr. Buchanan's letter to him, under date of March 12th, 1846:

"On your return to the United States, energetic measures against Mexico would at once be recommended by the President ; and these might fail to obtain the support of Congress, if it could be asserted that the existing government [that of Paredes, the military president, who succeeded Herrera,] had not refused to receive our minister."

ener

This was written nearly two months after General Taylor had been ordered to move to the Rio Grande. The 66 getic measures" were already commenced, though without the knowledge of Congress. America was invading territory which Mexico claimed, and at the same time instructing her minister to present his credentials with a view to adjust the difficulties in a pacific way! This, we confess, is extraordinary. The President did not know the minister would be rejected by Paredes when he ordered General Taylor to advance into Tamaulipas, and he was not rejected till two months

* Any one may see the authorities in Wheaton's Law of Nations, Part III.

ch. 1.

after that order. But we must return to this mission of Mr. Slidell in another page.

The man who could logically adduce the above grievances in order to justify America, would do it with the tacit admission that she began the war; else why undertake to justify it? If Mexico began the war, that was her business. She is to justify it if she can. America may have a thousand reasons for making a war, but if she has not made it, she has no reason for undertaking to justify a war which she did not begin. The President may state other grievances, but not in such a connection, or for such a purpose as the present. But now he abandons that part of the argument; the issue is changed. It is Mexico that began the war. But how? By invading our territory. The Mexican general, says Mr. Polk, "had collected a large army on the opposite [the west] shore of the Rio Grande," "invaded our territory, and commenced hostilities by attacking our forces." Thus Mexico " consummated her long course of outrages by commencing an offensive war, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil."

It is true that on the 4th of April, 1846, General Paredes did order the commander on the Texan frontier to attack the enemy "by every means which war permits," and on the 18th of April, to the same person, adds, "I suppose you. ... either fighting already or preparing for the operations of a campaign." "It is indispensable that hostilities be commenced, yourself taking the initiative." But where was the enemy to be attacked; was he to take the initiative by making an invasion or repelling one ?

To answer this question, we are to show what was the western boundary of Texas. Was it the Rio Grande, the Nueces, or some line between them, or elsewhere? Mr. Polk claims to the Rio Grande. These are the arguments which he adduces.

1. "Texas as ceded by France in 1803 has been always claimed as extending west to the Rio Grande," and accordingly the United States asserted and maintained their territorial rights to this extent till 1819, when it was ceded to Spain. It is on the strength of this claim that annexation is

a re-annexation.

2. The republic of Texas always claimed this river-from the mouth to the source as her western boundary, and it was recognized as such by Santa Anna himself, in 1836.

3. For more than nine years Texas "exercised many acts

of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants west of the Nueces."

4. Congress understood that the Rio Grande, from source to mouth, was the boundary of Texas in 1845, when the act of annexation was passed. "This was the Texas which . . . was admitted as one of the States of our Union."

All this is specious- at least to one who knows nothing of the facts; very plausible to one who is more a subject of Authority than a subject of Reason. But certainly Mexico had never admitted the Rio Grande from source to mouth as her boundary on this side. We think there is no controversy about the limits of Texas, except as it borders on the Mexican territory. Yet uncertainty of limits is recognized by America in the very act of annexation. The "joint resolutions" say: "1. Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the republic of Texas may be erected into a new State." And "2. Said State to be formed subject to the adjustment of the government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments.” Here the limits are admitted to be doubtful, and are to be adjusted by the government.

Suppose this were all, that the boundary was simply doubtful—what was the just and proper course to pursue? to send an army to the extreme and doubtful limit of the territory which we claimed? If so, then Mexico - who thought at least her claim equally good-had the same right. What if that course had been pursued with England in settling the, question of the "northeastern boundary," or the boundary of the Oregon territory; what if England had acted by the same rule, and the two nations, without a single attempt to settle the matter by negotiation, had sent an "army of occupa tion" to take military possession, each power up to the extent of its own claims? Why it would have been-like what we have seen in Texas.

But why did not the American government resort to negotiation? Because the Mexican government would not receive a special commissioner appointed for that work? Not at all: she rejected Mr. Slidell because he was not such a special commissioner. "The sword," says somebody, "ends all popular evils, but cures none." It certainly begins a great many. The reason why the American government sent the sword before the negotiator will appear in due time.

It is by no means clear that the Americans had a good and

clear title to the Rio Grande, from end to end. A claim is one thing, a clear title is a little different. Did the American government claim the Rio Grande as the boundary of Louisiana, as ceded by France in 1803? So we claimed western Florida as a part of the same Louisiana. Mr. Jefferson, in 1805, said its limits were "the Perdito on the east, and the Brazo [the Rio Grande] on the west." It turned out to be a mistake. The claim was purely diplomatic, the claim of much in order to get all that could be had. Such are the morals of pedlers in politics as of pedlers in other wares. America had a claim to the whole of Oregon, from San Francisco to the Russian settlements. Mr. Polk himself claimed up to 54. 40, and with "the settled conviction that the British pretensions of title could not be maintained to any portion of the Oregon territory." He asserted "our title to the whole Oregon territory," and thought it was "maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments." The legislature of one of the New England States, we are told, went further, and declared our right up to 54. 49. But, somehow, in the thaw of a negotiation, the claim gradually melted away, and reached no further than the 49th parallel of latitude.

It would be easy to show, whatsoever was the true western boundary of Texas, that it was not the Rio Grande. However, we do not intend at present entering upon that discussion. The reader will find much valuable information in the speech of Mr. Senator Benton, and in the two able and learned speeches of Mr. Severance, of Maine, delivered the one in the House of Representatives at Washington, Feb. 4th, 1847, and the other in the Legislature of Maine, July 27th, 1847. We shall for the present confine ourselves to the correspondence between Mr. A. J. Donelson and Mr. Buchanan, only premising that Mr. Donelson was sent by the American government in March, 1845, to Texas, to complete the work of annexation. We shall show from this correspondence

1. That it was well known that Texas had no just claim to the Rio Grande as her western boundary.

2. That war was expected as the consequence of the annexation of Texas.

3. That there was a concerted scheme to throw the blame of the war upon Mexico, by provoking her to commence hostilities.

The correspondence is published in Doc. No. 2, 29th Congress, 1st Session.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »